From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: Jimi Xenidis <jimix@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>,
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com,
Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Powerpc and software single step
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:30:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030820023005.GA1004@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <16194.42367.562777.115053@kitch0.watson.ibm.com>
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 06:32:31PM -0400, Jimi Xenidis wrote:
> >>>>> "DJ" == Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
>
> DJ> On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 10:55:13AM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote:
>
> >> 2) Why is ``ppc_linux_single_step_mode'' an extern in tm-linux.h? I
> >> would really prefer that it be local to ppc-linux-tdep.c. If
> >> there's some compelling reason for it to not be local, then we can
> >> discuss adding it to ppc-tdep.h.
>
> DJ> Could we do this slightly differently? SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP_P is used
> DJ> in two non-platform-specific files: infptrace.c for a sanity
> DJ> check,
> This sanity check is wierd, does it expect PT_STEP to be defined _and_
> not supported?
It does happen. MIPS/Linux does that sometimes, so does anything else
where PT_STEP is restricted or broken.
> DJ> Why not add a hook to check there which lets the user use software
> DJ> single step? It'll require playing with the target macros; we'd need
> DJ> something like:
> DJ> SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP - perform software single step
> DJ> SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP_P - SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP available
> DJ> SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP_ONLY_P - no hardware singlestep available
> DJ> (check that in infptrace instead of SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP_P?)
>
> I believe that this increases the complexity of the solution.
> On first inspection it looks like the proper solution is simply
> abstracting single step and let the code do the appropriate
> thing.. but that could easily break older targets that are not
> actively maintained, but I yield to senior heads on this.
>
> My first attempt was to drag ppc/rs6000 into the gdbarch world and
> drop the #defines all together. However, the test (_P) rotuine tests
> a function pointer and it was not readily apparent how to have a set
> command set a function pointer or actually run code to do so. Perhaps
> pairing it with a gdbarch boolean?
I'm not sure what you mean. I actually left out something from my
example; above would be macros set by the architecture, and there would
be a USE_SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP_P that would be user controlled but
default based the architecture.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-08-20 2:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-08-12 22:31 Jimi Xenidis
2003-08-19 17:55 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-08-19 19:05 ` Jimi Xenidis
2003-08-19 19:13 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-08-19 22:32 ` Jimi Xenidis
2003-08-20 2:30 ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2003-08-20 2:57 ` Jimi Xenidis
2003-08-20 3:09 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-08-20 3:21 ` Jimi Xenidis
2003-08-20 13:07 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-08-20 13:54 ` Jimi Xenidis
2003-08-20 15:51 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-08-20 16:02 ` Jimi Xenidis
2003-08-21 3:48 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-08-22 13:17 ` Jimi Xenidis
2003-08-22 15:54 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-08-22 17:32 ` Jimi Xenidis
2003-08-22 18:20 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-09-08 18:58 ` Patch to eliminate SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP from ppc Was: " Jimi Xenidis
2003-09-08 19:00 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-09-08 20:17 ` Jimi Xenidis
2003-09-08 20:20 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-09-08 21:22 ` Jimi Xenidis
2003-09-08 22:01 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-09-09 10:30 ` Jimi Xenidis
2003-09-09 15:30 ` AHAH! " Jimi Xenidis
2003-09-09 16:15 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-09-09 17:01 ` Jimi Xenidis
2003-09-09 17:55 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-09-09 22:01 ` PATCH: Re: AHAH! Re: Patch to eliminate SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP Jimi Xenidis
2003-09-10 1:24 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-10-10 2:40 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-08-20 2:30 ` Powerpc and software single step Andrew Cagney
2003-08-20 2:33 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-08-21 14:01 ` Andrew Cagney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030820023005.GA1004@nevyn.them.org \
--to=drow@mvista.com \
--cc=ac131313@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=jimix@watson.ibm.com \
--cc=kevinb@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox